CHAPTER 1
ANNUAL REPORTS OF STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
1.1
The annual reports for the financial year 2013–14 of the following
statutory authorities in the Attorney-General's portfolio were referred to the
committee for examination and report:
- Audio-Visual
Copyright Society Limited;
- High
Court of Australia; and,
- Australian
Government Solicitor.
1.2
No annual report was referred to the committee over this time period
from the Immigration and Border Protection portfolio.
1.3
The Australian Financial Security Authority (AFSA) annual report was
tabled in both Houses on 17 November 2014; however, AFSA is an executive
agency and is therefore not examined in this report.
1.4
The committee has decided to closely examine the annual reports for the
Audio-Visual Copyright Society Limited, High Court of Australia and the
Australian Government Solicitor.
Audio-Visual Copyright Society Limited
1.5
The Audio-Visual Copyright Society Limited, which trades as Screenrights,
is an Australian domiciled company. The company is a non-profit entity and its
principal activities include: exercising its right as a collecting society
under Part VA, Part VC and Part VB (in relation to audio-visual items) of
the Copyright Act 1968
(Copyright Act); and collecting money from educational institutions for
distribution to relevant copyright owners.[1]
Screenrights' annual report was tabled in the House of Representatives on 23 February
2015 and in the Senate on 2 March 2015.
1.6
The company is limited by guarantee and, pursuant to section 34(2) of
the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (CAC Act), is a
wholly-owned Commonwealth company. The guarantee 'in the event of the winding
up of the [c]ompany is $10 for each member'.[2]
As at 30 June 2014, the company's total liability was $36 930 from 3693 full
members.[3]
This year's liability has increased compared with its liability of $35 600 from
3560 members in 2012–13.[4]
1.7
The annual report of Screenrights needs to comply with ministerial
orders made under section 48 of the CAC Act, which are set out in the Commonwealth
Companies (Annual Reporting) Orders 2011. The content of annual reports of
Commonwealth companies is based on the reporting requirements under the Corporations
Act 2001, in accordance with section 36 of the CAC Act. The reporting
provisions for Screenrights are contained in sections 135R, 135ZZD, 135ZZV and
183D of the Copyright Act.[5]
1.8
The committee's review of the Screenrights Annual Report 2013–14 has
again identified certain issues that have already been identified in previous
committee reports[6]
The following items have not been included in the report:
- a
letter of transmittal;
- a
contents page;
- a
compliance index;
- a
glossary index; and
- reporting
requirements with which the annual report complies.
1.9
The inclusion of the above information would improve the accessibility
of information, as well as assist the committee in its examination of the
report. The use of graphs have again been utilised in the report, however the inclusion
of easily identifiable headings would greatly assist the reader with quickly
understanding the information contained in each graph.[7]
1.10
Nonetheless, the committee is pleased to see that the report provides a
comprehensive Chief Executive's report,[8]
company profile[9]
and directors' report,[10]
as well as information on the enabling legislation under which Screenrights
operates.[11]
The layout and format of its financial statements and 'Notes to the
Consolidated Financial Statements' continue to be clearly set out and easy to follow.[12]
1.11
In 2013–14, Screenrights reported a $41.9 million in license revenue and
other income for the film and television industries.[13]
This amount is down from the previous year's amount of $46.5 million.[14]
Expenditure in relation to total collections in 2013–14 was 14.9 per cent of
collections, slightly higher than the 14.2 per cent achieved in 2012–13.[15]
The company distributed $36.23 million to its members, a decrease compared to
the $40.54 million distributed in 2012–13.[16]
1.12
In the report's review and results of operations, Screenrights reported
a net operating profit after income tax for 2013–14 as $0.00; a significant
reduction compared to the $927 712 profit reported in 2012–13.[17]
1.13
The Chairman reported that in 2013–14, Screenrights upgraded its EnHance
TV Direct online streaming service to education institutions across the
country. In addition, a new disbursement service was initiated to assist
filmmakers with the administrative burden of accessing their payments.[18]
The Chairman also commented on the Australian Law Reform Commission's Copyright
and the Digital Economy report, and welcomed the recommendation that
Screenrights remains a statutory authority. However, the Chairman wrote that
Screenrights opposes the introduction of a 'broad fair use regime [as it] would
significantly erode the capacity of [Screenrights'] creators to license their
work, and create an environment of commercial uncertainty'.[19]
1.14
The committee considers the annual report of Screenrights to be
'apparently satisfactory', but again expresses some concern about the accessibility
of certain information and the omission of some required information.
High Court of Australia
1.15
The High Court of Australia's (the High Court/the court) annual
report for 2013–14 is presented in accordance with section 47 of the High Court of Australia Act 1979. The High Court is not a prescribed agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, due to its status under its enabling legislation.[20] Therefore, the Requirements for Annual Reports do not apply to the
High Court's annual report.
1.16
Nonetheless, section 3(4) of the Requirements for Annual
Reports provides:
In the case of an agency (including an
executive agency established under section 65 of the Public Service Act 1999)
that is neither prescribed under the FMA Act nor comes within the CAC Act,
these Requirements may be used to the extent that they are consistent with any
reporting requirements contained in the agency's own legislation (if any).[21]
1.17
The annual report of the High Court of Australia was tabled in both the House
of Representatives and the Senate on 24 November 2014, and complies with the
High Court's own reporting requirements.
1.18
For the reporting period 2013–14, the High Court received $16.455
million in revenue from appropriations and its operating expenses for the year
totalled $25.432 million. Overall, the High Court reported a deficit of
$8.977 million that was a result of the changes in asset values.[22]
Unfunded depreciation totalled $4.661 million and a write down of assets
totalled $4.335 million; this expenditure was included in the High Court's
operating expenses. However, the High Court's underlying operating result, with
depreciation and write down assets removed, was a surplus of $0.021 million.[23]
This surplus is less than the previous year's surplus of $0.108 million.[24]
1.19
The High Court in 2013–14 had 80 000 people visit and of that total, 35
000 visitors were school pupils that received guided tours,[25]
comprising of over 700 school groups.[26]
The High Court's website remains popular, with 158 323 hits to the cases index
page alone in the 2013–14 period[27]
and there are over 23 000 subscribers to the court's subscription service.[28]
1.20
In October 2013, the High Court made available on its website public access
to audio-visual recordings of Full Court hearings heard in Canberra. This
initiative is a first for the Australian court system and has proven popular,
with over 30 000 hits between October 2013 and June 2014.[29]
1.21
The overall judicial workload of the High Court increased slightly in
2013–14, compared to the previous year but was far below that of 2011–12.
Table 1.1 provides the exact figures for the past three years.
Table 1.1:
|
2013–14[30]
|
2012–13[31]
|
2011–12[32]
|
Cases filed
|
630
|
618
|
728
|
Civil and
criminal appeals decided by Full Court:
-
within six months
-
within three months
|
96 per cent
80 per cent
|
78 per cent
36 per cent
|
53 per cent
29 per cent
|
Percentage of special leave applications filed by
self-representative litigants
|
40 per cent
|
44 per cent
|
41 per cent
|
Percentage of civil special leave applications involving
immigration matters
|
28 per cent
|
24 per cent
|
30 per cent
|
Percentage of applications for leave or special leave to
appeal decided by the court were determined on the papers
|
47 per cent
|
53 per cent
|
49 per cent
|
1.22
In 2013–14, the majority of cases were filed in the Sydney registry
office (52 per cent of cases), followed by the offices in Melbourne (27 per
cent of cases) and Canberra (21 per cent). The Melbourne and Canberra offices
processed cases filed in other interstate cities as well as those filed in
these respective cities.[33]
1.23
Similar to previous Reports on Annual Reports, the committee again recommends
that the High Court clarifies the court's outcome - to interpret and uphold the
Australian Constitution and perform the functions of the ultimate appellate
court in Australia - earlier in its annual report. This statement is currently placed
near the end of the report in the 'Notes to and forming part of the Financial
Statements'.[34]
This was also the case in the 2012–13 and 2011–12 annual reports.
1.24
As mentioned in the committee's last report, although the Requirements
for Annual Reports do not apply to the High Court, the committee wishes to
emphasise the importance of performance reporting in annual reports. This
provides the relevant agency with an accountability framework as well as a
monitoring mechanism of activities and practices. As stated in the Requirements
for Annual Reports:
The "clear read" between PB Statements and annual
reports is an essential part of the accountability system that compares
budgeted targets and figures to those actually achieved, and places a strong
emphasis on compatibility between the two documents regarding budget and
performance information.[35]
1.25
Aside from the concern raised above, the committee again reiterates that
the court's annual report provides a clear and concise overview of the court's
activities over the reporting period. The layout, in terms of the annual report's
headings, chapters, statistical information relating to the court's workload,
funding arrangements, visitor programs and building maintenance, are clearly
set out and easy to follow. Statistical information in the annual report is
also presented in both graphical and tabulated formats where appropriate to
enhance the accessibility of the information.
1.26
The committee considers the annual report of the High Court to be
'apparently satisfactory'.
Australian Government Solicitor
1.27
The report of the Australian Government Solicitor (AGS) was presented to
the Senate out of sitting 10 November 2014, tabled in the Senate on 17 November
2014 and in the House of Representatives on 24 November 2014. The report was
not presented to the minister by the deadline of 15 October. The
committee notes the late presentation of the report; however it was available
for the committee for Supplementary Budget Estimates 2014–15 due to the
rescheduling of the Attorney-General's portfolio's hearing.
1.28
The AGS is a statutory authority and a government business enterprise
(GBE). The AGS's legislative framework is provided in Part VIIIB of the Judiciary Act 1903
and it is subject to the reporting and accountability requirements of the Commonwealth
Authorities and Companies Act 1997[36](CAC
Act). Its mandate is to support the 'Attorney-General in the role of
First Law Officer of the Commonwealth [and] operate efficiently as a government
business enterprise and add shareholder value'.[37]
The AGS assists the Attorney-General, provides advice to executive government
and Commonwealth agencies, and works with the Solicitor-General and the
Attorney-General's Department's Office of Constitutional Law on constitutional
cases in the High Court of Australia.[38]
1.29
On 28 May 2015, the Judiciary Amendment Act 2015 was passed by
both Houses. This amendment to the Judiciary Act 1903 will consolidate
AGS into the Attorney-General's Department and repeals AGS's role as a
statutory corporation.[39]
1.30
The Chief Executive Officer's review outlined the work of the AGS
in 2013–14 that included assisting with Operation Sovereign Borders,
the proposed paid parental leave scheme, an audit of the National Broadband
Network process, the privatisation of Medibank, royal commissions and the Farm
Finance Concessional Loans Scheme.[40]
1.31
The CEO announced a legal trading profit of $4.2 million in 2013–14,
exceeding the corporate plan's forecasted profit by $3.2 million and $80 000
more than last year's profit result. The AGS managed to save on overhead
expenses, excluding staff costs, and was under budget by $2.7 million,
achieving a return on equity of 10.5 per cent, higher than last year's figure
of 8.9 per cent.[41]
1.32
Additionally, the review stated that the demand for the AGS's services had
increased in 2013–14. Demand for services increased by 16 per cent on the
previous year, with more than 8 500 matters being opened.[42]
1.33
Other significant work, not detailed in the CEO's review, included
advice the AGS provided in the lead up to the 2013 federal election and
subsequent changes to the machinery-of-government,[43]
and the advice provided to the Australian Electoral Commission regarding the
election void after the loss of ballot papers in the Western Australian Senate
election.[44]
The AGS also provided advice on international law issues, such as tobacco plain
packaging litigation brought by Philip Morris Asia Limited, and a number of
commissions, inquests and tribunals, such as the Royal Commission into
Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.[45]
1.34
The annual report provided an overview of AGS operations as a GBE. In
the 15 years since becoming a GBE, the AGS has made profits of $164 million and
made payments of $245 million to the Commonwealth.[46]
In addition to the key financial outcomes already outlined, the AGS achieved
the following results in 2013–14:
- trading
revenue of $111.3 million;
- profit
including interest was $5.7 million (114% above corporate plan target);
- total
shareholder return 10.1 per cent; and
- paid
and declared dividends of $6.6 million.[47]
1.35
The performance measures for 2013–14 are detailed in a 'scorecard' index
with three codes: good or better performance or trends, satisfactory
performance or trends, and unsatisfactory performance or trends. The AGS scored
itself 'good or better performance or trends' in all five performance measures (financial
performance, business efficiency, leverage/solvency, customers and
stakeholders, and staff).[48]
1.36
Although it is apparent that the AGS has had excellent results over the
period of 2013–14, the committee believes the report lacks clarity on its
financial performance figures due to the exclusion of benchmark figures referenced
in the AGS's corporate plan. The committee suggests including a comparison to
the previous year's performance results would assist the reader to comprehend the
AGS's progress.
1.37
Overall, the report is well presented and provides excellent details on the
AGS activities over the year. The committee considers the annual report of the AGS
to be 'apparently satisfactory'.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page